Malik Sharief-Ud-Din, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed againit the order dated 9th of October 1980 of the learned Meiropolitan Magistrate by which he dismissed a complaint under Section 29 (2) read with Section 14 of the Delhi Development Act and acquitted the respondent who was accused of the commission of the crime.

( 2 ) THE brief facts are that on 9th of October 1978 the field staff of the Delhi Development Authority found the respondent has permitted the building M-291, Greater Kailash-11, New Delhi, toba used for non-conforming purposes by running a unit of ready-made garments. The aforesaid building falls in zone No. F-9 and according to the scheme of Master Plan it could only be used for residential purposes as envisaged by Section of the Delhi Development Act, 1957.

( 3 ) BEFORE we proceed further, we may take notice of the stand that the respondent bad taken before the trial court during his statement under Section 313 Cr PC. The crux of the stand taken by the respondent is that the basement was being used for non-conforming purpose. He, however, took the shelter behind the fact that the zonal Development Plan of the area is not in force. Further, he took the stand that the premises was let out after seeking permission under Section l\ of the Delhi Rent Control Act and that he did not permit the misuser and had also given notice to the tenant for misusing the premises.

( 4 ) THE learned Metropolitan Magistrate has believed the testimony the prosecution witnesses that the building in question falls in zone No. F-9 of the Master Plan for Delhi and could be used for residential purposes alone. In the zonal Development Plan. Public Witness. 2 Mr. V K. Tuli, Junior Engineer, has been identified the location of the building at point x indicated by mark a in the zonal Development Plan Ex. PW2/e. The learned counsel for the respondent in the trial court look the plea that since there was no specific user of the basement prescribed in the Master Plan for Delhi and the zonal Development Plan of the area bad not come into force the accused could not be held responsible for the offence. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate also observed that since the Master Plan does not make mention of any specific user of the basement in a residential house, no criminal liability can be foisted upon the respondent and it cannot be held that the respondent was using the basement or permitting its use for non-conforming purpose. On this short observation, the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused.

( 5 ) NOW, before we proceed further in the matter we would like to mention that the respondent had taken refuge behind the permission granted to him under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. We have gone through the permission, which is on the original file, according to which it was only ground floor that was permitted to be let out and that too for residential purpose only. There is no mention of the basement and, in fact, in the agreement between the tenant and the respondent it was specifically mentioned that it is the ground floor having entrance from the rear that was being leased out to the tenant and that too for the residential purpose. The respondent in his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C had admitted that the basement was being used for non-conforming purpose though be takes shelter behind the fact that the Zonal Development Plan has not come into force in the area.

( 6 ) WE may at once say that this case is straightaway covered by a judgment of this court in Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 1981 D. D. A. v. M/f. Rajiv Trading Co. and Ors. delivered on 6th of September 1990- by a Bench comprising of S. B. Wad and MK. Chawla, JJT. As to the fact that even the owner who permitted the user for non-conforming use is covered by Section 29 (2) of the Delhi Development Act, Mrs Usha Kumar has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this court in Delhi Development Authority v. K. P. Shankara and Anr , 24 (198

Click Here to Read the rest of this document